Verify if a database exists within a specified cluster. Returns success if present, or a 404 error if not.
Check that a database exists (GET /mysql/v1/clusters/{clusterName}/databases/{databaseName}; 404 if not).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clusterName | Yes | Cluster name (3-30 chars, lowercase letters/digits/'-', no leading or trailing '-'; immutable after creation) | |
| databaseName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation returns 404 when the database does not exist, which is valuable error-semantic context. It also reveals the underlying REST endpoint and HTTP method, though it stops short of describing successful response bodies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the exact REST path in parentheses. Every element earns its place and there is no extraneous prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only existence check, the description covers the operation, the 404 behavior, and the endpoint, and the schema supplies the two required parameters. Since the tool only verifies existence, the lack of a success response body description is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents clusterName with a description but leaves databaseName to its pattern only. The description's endpoint path clarifies the role and order of both parameters, but it adds no further semantic detail about the databaseName format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear, specific operation: verifying whether a database exists within a given cluster. The HTTP path and the explicit 404-on-missing behavior precisely define the resource and expected outcome, distinguishing it from list/create/delete database siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a pre-flight existence check but never names alternatives such as ncloud_serverless_list_databases or create/delete tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the use case from the tool name and the 404 semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.